Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 456 of 1978, decided on 19th October, 1978.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4.6‑1978 in S.A.O. No. 243 of 1978).
--S. 13(6) read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Landlord and tenant‑Determination of relationship of‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether Rent Controller can pass order for deposit of tentative rent before determining question of relationship of landlord and tenant between parties.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court, M. A Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Date of hearing : 19th October, 1978.
Mufti Abdul Ghani, respondent filed an application on 19‑9‑1975, under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) for ejectment of (1) Province of the Punjab and (2) The Director of Education (hereinafter called as tenants) from the property in dispute which consisted of a building in which was located a school by the name of Muhammadia Primary School for Girls, Mohni Road, Lahore. The learned Rent Controller by means of his order dated 17‑3‑1977 directed the tenants to deposit an amount of Rs. 76,500, being arrears of rent for the period 1‑1‑1973 to 31‑3‑1977 at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month and future rent at the same rate by the 15th of the month following the one for which the rent was due. The tenants deposited the requisite rent, but so far as the rent for the month of May, 1977, was concerned and which was to be deposited by the 15th June, 1977, the same was deposited on 20‑6‑1977 after a delay of 5 days. Finding no sufficient cause for the aforesaid delay, the learned Rent Controller by means of his order of 16‑7‑1977 struck off the defence of the tenants and directed that the landlord should be put in possession of the property aforesaid.
2. The tenants filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 10‑4‑1978.
3. The tenants filed a second appeal which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 4‑6‑1978. The tenants have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his clients had taken, up a plea before the learned Rent Controller that the eject ment application against them was not maintainable and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties inasmuch as Mufti Abdul Ghani was neither owner nor the transferee of the property in dispute and had even otherwise no) locus standi to institute any action against the petitioners. It was submitted that before directing the deposit of rent, the learned Rent Controller should have decided the aforementioned objection which went to the very root of the case and the jurisdiction and competency of the learned Rent Controller in taking up or proceeding with this matter. We have gone through the record. It appears that the objections aforesaid were raised before the learned Rent Controller but were not taken note of. The question whether in these circumstances any order for deposit of rent could have been passed requires consideration. We grant leave to appeal to the petitioners as prayed for by them.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that an order for the maintenance of the status quo be passed because his clients were still in possession of the property in dispute. On the other hand, Mufti Abdul Ghani who appeared in person submitted that he had already taken possession of the property in execution of the decree of the learned Rent Controller and as such the question of issuing any stay order at this stage did not arise. Without entering into the controvery as to whether the possession has been taken or not, we would direct that whosoever is in possession of the property should continue to remain in possession till the decision of this appeal.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer